Metro Jacksonville

Quote"My first reaction would be that I don't think there's any way you could do anything close to that without having a financial impact on our customers," JEA board Chairman Mike Hightower said Tuesday in an interview.

http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-01-21/story/mayor-brown-proposes-boosting-jeas-annual-contributions-40-million-help

http://www.news4jax.com/news/mayor-brown-use-jea-funds-to-fill-pension-deficit/-/475880/24038900/-/106qbrkz/-/index.html

I'm going to take it from your left pocket instead of your right ... Its a fee not a tax.

Mayor Brown continues to play semantics much like other politicians. 

Yeah.... The Pension Fund is exactly like every other typical investment fund....

We all have a JEA house next to some swamp land that we can sell you. Next great meeting of the LOST which is FIND also is diverting taxpayer money for special Backroom deals is meeting on 1/23/15 at 9:30 am in council chambers.

This is all Positive.

Visit Jacksonville!

Well, he already made the City Council do his job because he was so scared of raising taxes, why not pass the next buck over to JEA? The school district's on deck, I'm sure.

Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2014, 07:51:00 AM

Quote from: icarus on January 22, 2014, 07:26:51 AM
I'm going to take it from your left pocket instead of your right ... Its a fee not a tax.

Mayor Brown continues to play semantics much like other politicians.

The JEA is pocketing 600 million dollars a year that it should be contributing back to the city.  This should have happened a looooong time ago.

That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders.

This is actually a positive to see the mayor step in and handle this with the JEA.

The energy company has been looting its franchise for years now.  They are supposed to contribute 20 percent of their profits back to the city every year. (it used to be 60 percent when the City directly owned the utility) but the practice has devolved into a one on one negotiation between whoever is president of the City Council and the Executive Director of the JEA.

This past year, the JEA contributed almost 5% of their profits, not 20%.

That amount boiled down to 200 million dollars.  It should have been 800 million.

Its a pity that the Council President isnt strong enough to demand the correct amount, and the Mayor has to step in.  But I see it as a good sign on Brown's part.

If they continue to threaten the residents with more additional rate hikes, then I think the mayor should offer to Audit the goddam outfit and lets play a good round of Ken Lay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay )

It might be amusing to see a few "Bondholders' fake their deaths.

If JEA sold bonds to pay for capital improvements or upgrades, then the bond holders deserve to be paid back at the interest rate that the bonds were sold at.  If this were a situation where people owned stock then I would agree that the city should get its cut before anyone else gets theirs.  If JEA stiffs the bond holders, something I am not sure they could even legally do, they would probably never be able to obtain funds for capital expenditures in the future, but we the customers would be stuck with significantly higher utility bills.

Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2014, 07:51:00 AM

The JEA is pocketing 600 million dollars a year that it should be contributing back to the city.  This should have happened a looooong time ago.

That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders.

Stephen - Some times you make very articulate arguments and other times you come across as ranting especially when it comes to areas dealing with finance.

First, JEA is a not-for-profit utility owned 100% by the City of Jacksonville.  Its Board of Directors and CEO are appointed by the Mayor and the City Council.

The JEA's debt program is regulated by the City Charter and City Council approval of debt issuance and debt refinancing is required.  The City typically authorizes a debt issuance of several hundred million dollars each for the water/sewer and electric systems once every few years to provide the utility with the ability to meet its capital needs as they arise. 

The 'Bondholders' include pension funds, 401ks, mutual funds, and individuals investing for their own retirement and savings.  The 'Bondholders are only entitled to the face value of the bond plus the stated interest rate.  The math is not complicated but suffice it to say the 'Bondholders' are not siphoning off money beyond what they have loaned plus interest.

As part of going to the market to raise money with bonds, "the City covenants with the JEA and with the bond holders that so long as any electric system bonds remain outstanding, the City will not exercise any present or future power to appropriate revenues of the JEA electric system for City purposes in a manner that would impair or affect the JEA's ability to service the debt on such bonds."

Basically, both, JEA and the City, are constrained in how much money they can pull from the utility as long as JEA owes money to bondholders.  No amount can be withdrawn that would impact JEAs ability to repay.  Also, to the extent the City gets greedy and pulls too much money from JEA, it adversely impacts JEA's financials and they then have to pay even more in interest if they have to issue more bonds.

Unlike the pension fund, JEA's finances are made public and you can easily review and educate yourself on what they earn and what any capital is used for.

Meanwhile, my opinion about Brown and his tactics stand. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck or in this case a tax. 

Quote from: carpnter on January 22, 2014, 09:03:45 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2014, 07:51:00 AM

Quote from: icarus on January 22, 2014, 07:26:51 AM
I'm going to take it from your left pocket instead of your right ... Its a fee not a tax.

Mayor Brown continues to play semantics much like other politicians.

The JEA is pocketing 600 million dollars a year that it should be contributing back to the city.  This should have happened a looooong time ago.

That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders.

This is actually a positive to see the mayor step in and handle this with the JEA.

The energy company has been looting its franchise for years now.  They are supposed to contribute 20 percent of their profits back to the city every year. (it used to be 60 percent when the City directly owned the utility) but the practice has devolved into a one on one negotiation between whoever is president of the City Council and the Executive Director of the JEA.

This past year, the JEA contributed almost 5% of their profits, not 20%.

That amount boiled down to 200 million dollars.  It should have been 800 million.

Its a pity that the Council President isnt strong enough to demand the correct amount, and the Mayor has to step in.  But I see it as a good sign on Brown's part.

If they continue to threaten the residents with more additional rate hikes, then I think the mayor should offer to Audit the goddam outfit and lets play a good round of Ken Lay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay )

It might be amusing to see a few "Bondholders' fake their deaths.

If JEA sold bonds to pay for capital improvements or upgrades, then the bond holders deserve to be paid back at the interest rate that the bonds were sold at.  If this were a situation where people owned stock then I would agree that the city should get its cut before anyone else gets theirs.  If JEA stiffs the bond holders, something I am not sure they could even legally do, they would probably never be able to obtain funds for capital expenditures in the future, but we the customers would be stuck with significantly higher utility bills.

Well therein lies the rub. If the company has cash reserves and revenues that would comfortably pay for the improvements, but yet insists on borrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups, and pays over market considering their credit rating, what do you call that, remembering of course that we're dealing with taxpayer money?

Ernst and Young audits the books of the JEA every year. Excellent firm. I have more faith in the finances of JEA than the COJ.

JEA does not own a nuclear plant. They did have an option to purchase 20% of a nuclear plant being built in SC by Duke.  It is potentially a cheaper and cleaner source of energy for almost 200,000 homes in Jacksonville.

In 2012, almost 50% of the JEA's net operating profits were paid back into COJ, well over $100m.

But, I digress and you have missed the entire point. Mayor Brown is playing sleight of hand. Saying you are not going to raise taxes but simultaneously raising a user fee, levy, charge, or in this case raiding your savings account to cover your checking account .... is still a tax.

QuoteBut, I digress and you have missed the entire point. Mayor Brown is playing sleight of hand. Saying you are not going to raise taxes but simultaneously raising a user fee, levy, charge, or in this case raiding your savings account to cover your checking account .... is still a tax.

+1000

of course the cameras are rolling and Brown chooses to show up and lead, right on camera. He should have had Sleiman there with him as his cheerleader!

Quoteborrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups,

Not sure I'm following. So you're against a company making a wise financial decision to amortize an expenditure over a period that is well short of an asset's useful remaining life by engaging in a transaction with institutional investors like teacher's pension funds? Have you ever took out a mortgage on a home or a car loan? 

That's a bizarre statement.

Quote from: Tacachale on January 22, 2014, 08:49:15 AM
Well, he already made the City Council do his job because he was so scared of raising taxes, why not pass the next buck over to JEA? The school district's on deck, I'm sure.

On the surface, I agree. 
Keeping an open (but still leaning skeptical) mind until we see what the actual proposal is first. 

Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2014, 10:05:26 AM

Quote from: fieldafm on January 22, 2014, 10:03:41 AM

Quoteborrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups,

Not sure I'm following. So you're against a company making a wise financial decision to amortize an expenditure over a period that is well short of an asset's useful remaining life by engaging in a transaction with institutional investors like teacher's pension funds? Have you ever took out a mortgage on a home or a car loan? 

That's a bizarre statement.

It would be, I think if it were for a private for profit company.

But borrowed money is never free is it?

So, you would prefer that JEA only pay cash for every single bit of capital expenditure (which are ENORMOUS in the business of delivering energy)?  I really don't see how that's advantageous.  Building one large water main project would probably eat up most of JEA's current cash. Then what happens the next year when four more large projects are required?  We experience rolling black outs like North Korea?

Respectfully do not  agree with your point at all, dear friend.

I must be missing your point entirely, and if so I apologize.  But if you are claiming that a JEA Board meeting is as hard to get into as a Skull and Bones gathering, or that JEA's financials are kept in an off, off book ledger next to the Dead Sea Scrolls then the hyperbole is a bit overhyped.  Any public utility company is highly regulated and is required to disclose a complete picture of their financial status.

https://jea.com/About_Us/Tariffs_and_Reports/FY12_Electric_System_Annual_Disclosure_Report.aspx (https://jea.com/About_Us/Tariffs_and_Reports/FY12_Electric_System_Annual_Disclosure_Report.aspx)

Page 64 starts going into debt service.  Page 3 of the Ernst & Young audit goes into the balance sheet.

Quote from: icarus on January 22, 2014, 09:32:58 AM
Ernst and Young audits the books of the JEA every year. Excellent firm. I have more faith in the finances of JEA than the COJ.

JEA does not own a nuclear plant. They did have an option to purchase 20% of a nuclear plant being built in SC by Duke.  It is potentially a cheaper and cleaner source of energy for almost 200,000 homes in Jacksonville.

In 2012, almost 50% of the JEA's net operating profits were paid back into COJ, well over $100m.

But, I digress and you have missed the entire point. Mayor Brown is playing sleight of hand. Saying you are not going to raise taxes but simultaneously raising a user fee, levy, charge, or in this case raiding your savings account to cover your checking account .... is still a tax.

Yes, people said the same of Arthur Andersen.

Quote from: fieldafm on January 22, 2014, 10:03:41 AM

Quoteborrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups,

Not sure I'm following. So you're against a company making a wise financial decision to amortize an expenditure over a period that is well short of an asset's useful remaining life by engaging in a transaction with institutional investors like teacher's pension funds? Have you ever took out a mortgage on a home or a car loan? 

That's a bizarre statement.

You seem to start with the premise that unnecessary borrowing is a wise financial move, so I'm not sure where you go with that? If you want an actual discussion that's one thing, this doesn't appear to be it. And FWIW no, I don't borrow to buy cars, or any other depreciating asset for that matter. It's not a good financial move.

What unnecessary borrowing is JEA undertaking?

None fieldafm. JEA and every utility both, public and private, must take on periodic planned and unplanned capital improvements that require additional liquidity, i.e. bond issues.  You see in addition to capital improvements they have to maintain a healthy amount of liquidity in case of unplanned events so that they can be in a position to restore power and water to communities in case of natural or man made disasters.

or in the alternative world:

It just seems that the secret order of bondholders, also known as the insiders by some, has expanded their influence to City Hall. They have managed to gain control of the Mayor's Office and the City Council; to further their goals of planting their agents as the board of the JEA and making sure evry budget and bond issue is approved.

Their further ability to manipulate the pricing of public bond offerings on open international markets and to charge higher than market interest rates is nothing short of machiavellian.  I dare say they have even been able to influence credit rating agencies and Big 4 accounting firms to further there schemes.

Have to agree with Icarus here. You are making referances that JEA is somehow manipulating debt markets, have off ledger balance sheets and now making a veiled comparison to companies like Enron. 

Somehow, the debate over whether to shift the City's unfunded pension burden away from taxpayers and on to...well, taxpayers, has made an irrelevant turn to some bizarre conspiracy theories. 

Stephen - I apologize to the extent my sarcasm exceeds the reasonable.  I get frustrated when debates or discussions get sidetracked with conspiracy theories and intimations of issues, no matter how relevant on their own, that bear no real rational relation to the original topic of discussion.

The best conspiracy theories are the ones laced with a hint of truth.  Case in point, the Enron and Anderson references.  Few people even actually understand Enron's business or what happened. Fewer people understand that JEA has its own energy trading subsidiary.

The fact is we have a Mayor with a penchant for seeing his face on television and his name in print accompanied by a seeming inability to do his job.  He produced a budget so absurd that he could have saved everyone a lot of time by not even attempting one. Now, his answer to a very serious issue is to pass a financial burden on to JEA versus dealing with the issue head on and making some real decisions.

Jim and Harry are both very nice, professional and capable attorneys.  I have a lot of respect for both but neither really was an expert on structured finance so I understand why they find it difficult to follow.

Again, the Mayor needs to focus on the union contracts, the investment performance and management of the Fund and the budget priorities of the City before he starts borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

The amount that the mayor wants JEA to contribute is nearly the exact amount that was conjured up by the city for a scoreboard that has averaged 15.4 points this season. Alanis Morrisette - Isn't Ironic softly plays in background.

QuoteThe fact is we have a Mayor with a penchant for seeing his face on television and his name in print accompanied by a seeming inability to do his job.  He produced a budget so absurd that he could have saved everyone a lot of time by not even attempting one. Now, his answer to a very serious issue is to pass a financial burden on to JEA versus dealing with the issue head on and making some real decisions.

Yeah, pretty much sums up the mayor, he doesn't do a thing unless there is a camera or TV crew on him. Great way to lead the city.

Quote from: icarus on January 22, 2014, 11:43:35 PM
Stephen - I apologize to the extent my sarcasm exceeds the reasonable.  I get frustrated when debates or discussions get sidetracked with conspiracy theories and intimations of issues, no matter how relevant on their own, that bear no real rational relation to the original topic of discussion.

The best conspiracy theories are the ones laced with a hint of truth.  Case in point, the Enron and Anderson references.  Few people even actually understand Enron's business or what happened. Fewer people understand that JEA has its own energy trading subsidiary.

The fact is we have a Mayor with a penchant for seeing his face on television and his name in print accompanied by a seeming inability to do his job.  He produced a budget so absurd that he could have saved everyone a lot of time by not even attempting one. Now, his answer to a very serious issue is to pass a financial burden on to JEA versus dealing with the issue head on and making some real decisions.

Jim and Harry are both very nice, professional and capable attorneys.  I have a lot of respect for both but neither really was an expert on structured finance so I understand why they find it difficult to follow.

Again, the Mayor needs to focus on the union contracts, the investment performance and management of the Fund and the budget priorities of the City before he starts borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

I don't think you have much right to be frustrated at it, when you're the one doing it. You and field have used hyperbole and straw men to pigeonhole and derail any actual discussion, without bothering apparently to know the underlying facts. Now your last post appears to be the "I'm just frustrated" (with the problem you created) voice of reason. It's like watching a schizophrenic talking amongst themselves.

I guess my question at this point is why this is such a hot button issue that you have a knee-jerk reaction and intentionally kill a discussion before it starts? Of all the topics on this site, why this one? What's your connection to JEA?

Quote from: fieldafm on January 22, 2014, 09:56:38 PM
What unnecessary borrowing is JEA undertaking?

JEA does far too much business with insiders, both in terms of borrowing and investing, for my comfort level. Or anyone's really. This is generally part of a larger game to reduce their contributions to COJ below the level set in their charter. JEA is hardly a victim here, and if you're running for office then I'd expect you to get up to speed on this rather than drinking the kool-ade like the present council, which at this point appears willing to accept something less than 5% when the city is actually entitled to 20%.

You and I have only ever gotten into it one time when you first joined this site, over downtown occupancy figures in a C&W market report that I called bunk. A year or two after our debate DVI came out and agreed virtually spot-on with my guesstimate. I never did go back and rub it in your face. But surely you must recognize I don't deal in bullshit and innuendo. Nor do I think that you do that, we otherwise agree on pretty much everything.

We've all collectively got a problem with this organization running around and lobbying to operate as though it's a private enterprise, when it's not. They also want to keep the money they make. Too bad. It's a taxpayer asset and serves the taxpayers, that's why it was created. Weaseling out of the public contributions mandated in their charter, or viewing it like a surcharge to be passed along to their customers, is unacceptable. It's not a private enterprise, and they need to pay their 20% and shut up about it. We generally agree on 99% of things most of the time, and I think if you actually look at what's occurring with JEA we'll agree on this one too. If you want a meaningful debate, it's here to be had, but this one immediately devolved into strawmen and pigeonholing.

Quote from: icarus on January 22, 2014, 09:11:21 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2014, 07:51:00 AM

The JEA is pocketing 600 million dollars a year that it should be contributing back to the city.  This should have happened a looooong time ago.

That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders.

Stephen - Some times you make very articulate arguments and other times you come across as ranting especially when it comes to areas dealing with finance.

First, JEA is a not-for-profit utility owned 100% by the City of Jacksonville.  Its Board of Directors and CEO are appointed by the Mayor and the City Council.

The JEA's debt program is regulated by the City Charter and City Council approval of debt issuance and debt refinancing is required.  The City typically authorizes a debt issuance of several hundred million dollars each for the water/sewer and electric systems once every few years to provide the utility with the ability to meet its capital needs as they arise. 

The 'Bondholders' include pension funds, 401ks, mutual funds, and individuals investing for their own retirement and savings.  The 'Bondholders are only entitled to the face value of the bond plus the stated interest rate.  The math is not complicated but suffice it to say the 'Bondholders' are not siphoning off money beyond what they have loaned plus interest.

As part of going to the market to raise money with bonds, "the City covenants with the JEA and with the bond holders that so long as any electric system bonds remain outstanding, the City will not exercise any present or future power to appropriate revenues of the JEA electric system for City purposes in a manner that would impair or affect the JEA's ability to service the debt on such bonds."

Basically, both, JEA and the City, are constrained in how much money they can pull from the utility as long as JEA owes money to bondholders.  No amount can be withdrawn that would impact JEAs ability to repay.  Also, to the extent the City gets greedy and pulls too much money from JEA, it adversely impacts JEA's financials and they then have to pay even more in interest if they have to issue more bonds.

Unlike the pension fund, JEA's finances are made public and you can easily review and educate yourself on what they earn and what any capital is used for.

Meanwhile, my opinion about Brown and his tactics stand. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its a duck or in this case a tax. 

Some pretty good post here by Icarus. 

Don't get too close to the sun.

Quote from: stephendare on January 23, 2014, 12:45:33 AM

So while I think we agree on Brown's performance, I am regrettably forced to part ways with you in feeling that the JEA is some kind of victim here.

The JEA isn't the victim here. I've got no sympathy for them. However, I'm not going to sit idly by and watch people justify what the Mayor is proposing because of their feelings about JEA especially when most of the discussion is rife with conspiratorial notions and not facts, i.e. insiders, bond holders siphoning, cooked books, et al.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear here. We are the victim. 

The Mayor keeps trotting out one trick ponies. Pension reform that would magically fix the budget and keep him from raising taxes but fail pensioners and taxpayers. Now, instead of actually rolling up his sleeves reviewing the performance of the departments and their budgets and engaging the voters with discussion on priorities for spending, he is going to look for another wallet to borrow from so he doesn't have to do his job. Oh, and, he won't have to raise taxes.

I know enough about JEA's finances and the bond agreements approved by the mayor and City Council to know that if you saddle JEA with a $40 million dollar a year fixed payment, it will only have one effect. JEA will raise rates to compensate ... in other words the buck gets passed on to us.  We need to focus on the actual outcome not the political justification for robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Quote from: icarus on January 23, 2014, 09:52:03 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 23, 2014, 12:45:33 AM

So while I think we agree on Brown's performance, I am regrettably forced to part ways with you in feeling that the JEA is some kind of victim here.

The JEA isn't the victim here. I've got no sympathy for them. However, I'm not going to sit idly by and watch people justify what the Mayor is proposing because of their feelings about JEA especially when most of the discussion is rife with conspiratorial notions and not facts, i.e. insiders, bond holders siphoning, cooked books, et al.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear here. We are the victim. 

The Mayor keeps trotting out one trick ponies. Pension reform that would magically fix the budget and keep him from raising taxes but fail pensioners and taxpayers. Now, instead of actually rolling up his sleeves reviewing the performance of the departments and their budgets and engaging the voters with discussion on priorities for spending, he is going to look for another wallet to borrow from so he doesn't have to do his job. Oh, and, he won't have to raise taxes.

I know enough about JEA's finances and the bond agreements approved by the mayor and City Council to know that if you saddle JEA with a $40 million dollar a year fixed payment, it will only have one effect. JEA will raise rates to compensate ... in other words the buck gets passed on to us.  We need to focus on the actual outcome not the political justification for robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Very, very well said.

It seems the 'proof' that JEA is corrupt and cooking the books is based on testimony at the Consolidation hearings and nothing more.  If the testimony were so damning, why isn't Lori Breyer, some other committee member, or someone else that heard the 'smoking gun' doing something about it?

I've never heard of any public or private utility not using bonds and debt instruments as a normal course of business.  The burden on proof that something nefarious is going on is on Stephen and Chrisw.  JEA's financials are there for anyone to see. You have to prove they are corrupt, JEA doesn't have to prove they AREN'T. 

Can you provide the verbatim quotes from the hearings that you find the most suspicious?

I would say that skipping Pension contributions and cutting property tax rates during the 'good times' had/have a lot to do with the city's current problems, irregardless of JEA.

Icarus is right, even if JEA needed reform, just demanding $40 million without any plan for that reform isn't going to fix the problem. It's just going to result in them raising rates so the mayor can maintain appearances. And it doesn't even scratch the surface of what needs to be done for the pensions.

QuoteCouncil skeptical about JEA funds

The City Council member maybe closest to the JEA has seen Mayor Alvin Brown's pension plan that seeks an additional $40 million annually from the utility — and he's skeptical it will work.

"I think there is a lot of wishful thinking in it," said council member Bill Bishop. "Could it be done? Sure it could be done. Can it be done without impacting electric rates? I doubt it."

The $40 million per year would be in addition to the $110 million JEA already gives the city annually.

Bishop said Wednesday that JEA is a capital-intensive business that has "a lot of debt" it is trying to pay back. A bond rating agency's first priority, he says, is to determine "how it's going to be paid back." That's especially true when the utility is in a relatively flat revenue period, he said.

full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=541660

Quote from: stephendare on January 23, 2014, 12:06:59 PM
yawn.  the claims of corruption and cooking the books come from icarus and field.

Stephen - I reread the comments and I don't see where either Field or I made claims of corruption or cooking the books.  Far from it, I know my responses were the opposite and generally in response to the explicit and implicit claims contained in both your and Chris' comments.

I've summarized them below for your convenience:

Stephen - (1) "That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders."

(2) "The energy company has been looting its franchise for years now."

(3)  "it seems clear that theyve been looting a half billion dollars a year for a decade or so."

(4) "the city should not allow its Enronergy company to pass the financial buck to the public that putatively owns it."

(5) "Maybe an audit by fed investigators would be a good idea anyways."

ChriswUFGator - (1) " ...yet insists on borrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups, and pays over market considering their credit rating.."

(2) Yes, people said the same of Arthur Andersen.

This is a link to the JEA Charter:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level3/CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE.html
(http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level3/CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE.html)

This is how payment to the city should be determined...I'm looking for my calculator. Let me know when you find yours.

(c)As consideration for the unique relationship between the City of Jacksonville and JEA, as a tax-exempt entity within the consolidated government, and in recognition of the shared attributes with the consolidated City of Jacksonville in connection with its electric, water, and sewer distribution systems, there shall be assessed upon JEA in each fiscal year, for the uses and purposes of the city, from the revenues of the electric system and the water and sewer system operated by JEA available after the payment of all costs and expenses incurred by JEA in connection with the operation of such electric system and water and sewer system (including, without limitation, all costs of operation and maintenance, debt service on all obligations issued by JEA in connection with such electric system and water and sewer system and required reserves therefore and the annual deposit to the depreciation and reserve account required pursuant to section 21.07(g)), an amount as provided herein. Effective October 1, 2008, consistent with the provisions of this section 21.07(c), JEA shall pay the city a combined assessment for the electric system and the water and sewer system. The combined assessment for the electric system and the water and sewer system shall equal, but not exceed the sum of (i) the amount calculated by multiplying 5.513 mills by the gross kilowatt-hours delivered by JEA to retail users of electricity in JEA's service area and to wholesale customers under firm contracts having an original term of more than one year (other than sales of energy to Florida Power and Light Company from JEA's St. Johns River Power Park System) during the twelve-month period ending on April 30 of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year for which such assessment is applicable plus (ii) the amount calculated by multiplying 2.149 mills by the number of cubic feet of potable water and cubic feet of sewer service, excluding reclaimed water service, provided to consumers during the twelve-month period ending on April 30 of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year for which such assessment is applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing not-to-exceed amount for the combined assessment, JEA shall pay the city each fiscal year, from fiscal year 2008-2009 through fiscal year 2015-2016, an additional amount, if necessary, to ensure a minimum annual increase of $ $2,500,000, using the fiscal year 2007-2008 combined assessment of $ $94,187,538 as the base year.

AND

(i)In addition to all other sums paid by JEA to the City of Jacksonville, JEA shall pay to the City of Jacksonville a franchise fee in an amount equal to three percent (3%) of the revenues of the electric system and the water and sewer system as set forth in Section 21.07(c) herein. The franchise fee will commence for revenues derived effective April 1, 2008 and shall be paid monthly with the first payment payable on June 1, 2008. The franchise fee shall be limited to (1) revenues derived within Duval County not including Urban Service Districts 2-5, and (2) per customer, total water and sewer rate revenues, and (3) up to a per customer maximum of $2,400,000 per fiscal year of electric rate revenues. The franchise fee shall be calculated each month by multiplying three percent (3%) by the sum of JEA's base rate electric revenues, fuel rate revenues, water rate revenues and sewer rate revenues for that month excluding unbilled revenues and uncollectible accounts. The franchise fee shall be calculated on revenues derived from the sale of gross kilowatt-hours and number of cubic feet of potable water and cubic feet of sewer service as set forth in Section 21.07(c). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no franchise fee shall be paid on franchise fees, state utility taxes, fuel related interchange sales, sales for resale, City of Jacksonville accounts, JEA accounts, investment income and other revenues. JEA shall be authorized to pass-through the amount of the franchise fees set forth herein and associated charges resulting from the stated three percent (3%) franchise fee calculation on rate revenues notwithstanding the $2,400,000 limit set forth herein to the customers of JEA, in accordance with the customers' proportionate share of rate revenues as calculated above. This franchise fee is in consideration of the administrative costs incurred by the City to coordinate functions and services with JEA, for the exclusive right to serve electric, water and sewer customers, for use by JEA of the public rights-of-way used by it in connection with its electric distribution system and its water and sewer distribution and collection system, and in further consideration of the unique relationship of JEA and the City, in which JEA is a wholly owned public utility, and such other good and valuable consideration that has been agreed to between JEA and the City of Jacksonville. The gross franchise fee and the amount of the pass-through set forth herein may be increased by ordinance, initiated by the Mayor and approved by two-thirds supermajority of the City Council, but the franchise fee shall not exceed six percent (6%) of the gross utility revenues as calculated above. The JEA and the City shall enter into a Franchise Fee Agreement for the administration of the Franchise Fee.


http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level3/CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE.html#CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE_S21.07FIBUFU
(http://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level3/CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE.html#CHRELA_PTACHLACHJAFL_ART21JE_S21.07FIBUFU)


The city was supposed to review this algorithm on Sept 30, 2013.

Quote from: icarus on January 23, 2014, 01:05:07 PM

Quote from: stephendare on January 23, 2014, 12:06:59 PM
yawn.  the claims of corruption and cooking the books come from icarus and field.

Stephen - I reread the comments and I don't see where either Field or I made claims of corruption or cooking the books.  Far from it, I know my responses were the opposite and generally in response to the explicit and implicit claims contained in both your and Chris' comments.

I've summarized them below for your convenience:

Stephen - (1) "That money doesnt go into the operations of the bloody enterprise, it goes into the pockets of the small group of private bondholders."

(2) "The energy company has been looting its franchise for years now."

(3)  "it seems clear that theyve been looting a half billion dollars a year for a decade or so."

(4) "the city should not allow its Enronergy company to pass the financial buck to the public that putatively owns it."

(5) "Maybe an audit by fed investigators would be a good idea anyways."

ChriswUFGator - (1) " ...yet insists on borrowing the funds anyway from insider-connected groups, and pays over market considering their credit rating.."

(2) Yes, people said the same of Arthur Andersen.

So after we've already objected to your pigeonholing this discussion into something it wasn't, in an effort to avoid discussing the actual issue, your response is...more of the same?

Quote from: vicupstate on January 23, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
It seems the 'proof' that JEA is corrupt and cooking the books is based on testimony at the Consolidation hearings and nothing more.  If the testimony were so damning, why isn't Lori Breyer, some other committee member, or someone else that heard the 'smoking gun' doing something about it?

I've never heard of any public or private utility not using bonds and debt instruments as a normal course of business.  The burden on proof that something nefarious is going on is on Stephen and Chrisw.  JEA's financials are there for anyone to see. You have to prove they are corrupt, JEA doesn't have to prove they AREN'T. 

Can you provide the verbatim quotes from the hearings that you find the most suspicious?

I would say that skipping Pension contributions and cutting property tax rates during the 'good times' had/have a lot to do with the city's current problems, irregardless of JEA.

Despite Icarus' bullshit, the proof is rather simple. Their charter (already posted in this thread) obligates them to pay X, and according to their financial statements (also already posted in this thread) they're not paying X. In fact they're presently "negotiating" with the city council to pay about 1/4 of X. The question is simple: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

Of course, instead of answering this obvious question, which was posed multiple times, we're instead going to pigeonhole it into being something else, erect strawmen, and just generally duck having to answer it. Really, this like amateur hour. Normally I'd engage, but it's not challenging enough to be entertaining.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, anybody want to answer the question: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 23, 2014, 05:48:47 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 23, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
It seems the 'proof' that JEA is corrupt and cooking the books is based on testimony at the Consolidation hearings and nothing more.  If the testimony were so damning, why isn't Lori Breyer, some other committee member, or someone else that heard the 'smoking gun' doing something about it?

I've never heard of any public or private utility not using bonds and debt instruments as a normal course of business.  The burden on proof that something nefarious is going on is on Stephen and Chrisw.  JEA's financials are there for anyone to see. You have to prove they are corrupt, JEA doesn't have to prove they AREN'T. 

Can you provide the verbatim quotes from the hearings that you find the most suspicious?

I would say that skipping Pension contributions and cutting property tax rates during the 'good times' had/have a lot to do with the city's current problems, irregardless of JEA.

Despite Icarus' bullshit, the proof is rather simple. Their charter (already posted in this thread) obligates them to pay X, and according to their financial statements (also already posted in this thread) they're not paying X. In fact they're presently "negotiating" with the city council to pay about 1/4 of X. The question is simple: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

Of course, instead of answering this obvious question, which was posed multiple times, we're instead going to pigeonhole it into being something else, erect strawmen, and just generally duck having to answer it. Really, this like amateur hour. Normally I'd engage, but it's not challenging enough to be entertaining.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, anybody want to answer the question: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

The info that The cat posted clearly shows that it is NOT a 20% flat fee. It is a very complicated and laborious calculation.     JEA aside, profit can be defined many ways (with or without depreciation, before or after taxes, etc.  A lot of 'profit' can be shown if no capital investment, or repairs and maintenance are made.     

The truth is, neither you nor Stephen has presented one shred of evidence of a nefarious nature.  Show us the quotes from the hearings.  Show us a behavior not common to energy utilities. Stop acting as if capital debt is not the norm for a utility.

You weaken the credibility of the entire site with these sensational tirades based on conspiracy theories instead of facts.  The only strawmen are the ones you two have made yourselves.
 

^^+1000

Quote from: vicupstate on January 23, 2014, 10:30:55 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 23, 2014, 05:48:47 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 23, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
It seems the 'proof' that JEA is corrupt and cooking the books is based on testimony at the Consolidation hearings and nothing more.  If the testimony were so damning, why isn't Lori Breyer, some other committee member, or someone else that heard the 'smoking gun' doing something about it?

I've never heard of any public or private utility not using bonds and debt instruments as a normal course of business.  The burden on proof that something nefarious is going on is on Stephen and Chrisw.  JEA's financials are there for anyone to see. You have to prove they are corrupt, JEA doesn't have to prove they AREN'T. 

Can you provide the verbatim quotes from the hearings that you find the most suspicious?

I would say that skipping Pension contributions and cutting property tax rates during the 'good times' had/have a lot to do with the city's current problems, irregardless of JEA.

Despite Icarus' bullshit, the proof is rather simple. Their charter (already posted in this thread) obligates them to pay X, and according to their financial statements (also already posted in this thread) they're not paying X. In fact they're presently "negotiating" with the city council to pay about 1/4 of X. The question is simple: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

Of course, instead of answering this obvious question, which was posed multiple times, we're instead going to pigeonhole it into being something else, erect strawmen, and just generally duck having to answer it. Really, this like amateur hour. Normally I'd engage, but it's not challenging enough to be entertaining.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, anybody want to answer the question: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

The info that The cat posted clearly shows that it is NOT a 20% flat fee. It is a very complicated and laborious calculation.     JEA aside, profit can be defined many ways (with or without depreciation, before or after taxes, etc.  A lot of 'profit' can be shown if no capital investment, or repairs and maintenance are made.     

The truth is, neither you nor Stephen has presented one shred of evidence of a nefarious nature.  Show us the quotes from the hearings.  Show us a behavior not common to energy utilities. Stop acting as if capital debt is not the norm for a utility.

You weaken the credibility of the entire site with these sensational tirades based on conspiracy theories instead of facts.  The only strawmen are the ones you two have made yourselves.
 

I really couldn't care less about your evaluation of my credibility, from your birdseye perspective 600 miles away in the carolinas. You've pulled this crap before, and I didn't care about your opinion then, and I don't care about it now. You've been warning me every time I've disagreed with you for years that me, Stephen, whoever you disagreed with, is damaging the credibility of this website.

Oddly enough the world keeps on spinning, the website has gained six figures in readership, things are peachy here in jacksonville (unlike you I actually live here), and yet you keep on warning people about damaging a website that you don't own in a city where you don't live. By all means, ask me how much I care. As to your comments to Stephen, considering he's an owner of this site, if you don't like it then by all means start your own website and run it however you want.

I genuinely felt bad about posting a tongue and cheek comment ridiculing the conspiratorial gossipy arguments a few posted on here.  But, after being called schizophrenic and now having my comments called bullshit, any personal guilt I felt in pointing out the absolute absurdity and patently ignorant comments in this thread has absolutely been assuaged.

I'm not even sure if some even understand what the term pigeon hole means or its mathematical origins. If what you meant to say, Chris, is that I wanted to contain the discussion to relevant facts devoid of conspiracy theories and focus on the real issue, I can agree with that characterization.  On the other hand, if you are complaining that I was not content to allow two people to hijack a legitimate topic with conspiracy and conjecture devoid of any real supporting argument, I can agree that is probably true because I find it difficult to suffer fools and idiots.

The fact is that our local government has over promised retirement benefits and availed itself of pension holidays.  The Mayor's office now wants to obfuscate the real issues by engaging in cheap accounting gimmicks and preying on the emotional weaknesses of the general public in an attempt to cover it's complete ineptitude. Your seeming inability to look past the naming of JEA and your emotional responses herein only shows the effectiveness of the Mayor's attempt to prey upon the weak.

Duval County is lucky that as a result of legacy decisions we own the local utility. Most counties in our state must be content to balance their budgets strictly on tax revenue and user 'fees.' As a collective, we should be engaged in using this financial contribution as an opportunity to prioritize our spending and invest in our future ... not as a way to cover up past transgressions.  What exactly do our tax dollars pay for? Why is it every other county can live within their tax revenues but we have to look to outside sources and resources, i.e. JEA?

If you can't see this for what it is, well, you are a fool and I would be even more so to try and disavow you of your foolish ways.  Goodnight, good luck and God bless. Ciao.

Quote from: icarus on January 24, 2014, 01:00:20 AM
I genuinely felt bad about posting a tongue and cheek comment ridiculing the conspiratorial gossipy arguments a few posted on here.  But, after being called schizophrenic and now having my comments called bullshit, any personal guilt I felt in pointing out the absolute absurdity and patently ignorant comments in this thread has absolutely been assuaged.

I'm not even sure if some even understand what the term pigeon hole means or its mathematical origins. If what you meant to say, Chris, is that I wanted to contain the discussion to relevant facts devoid of conspiracy theories and focus on the real issue, I can agree with that characterization.  On the other hand, if you are complaining that I was not content to allow two people to hijack a legitimate topic with conspiracy and conjecture devoid of any real supporting argument, I can agree that is probably true because I find it difficult to suffer fools and idiots.

The fact is that our local government has over promised retirement benefits and availed itself of pension holidays.  The Mayor's office now wants to obfuscate the real issues by engaging in cheap accounting gimmicks and preying on the emotional weaknesses of the general public in an attempt to cover it's complete ineptitude. Your seeming inability to look past the naming of JEA and your emotional responses herein only shows the effectiveness of the Mayor's attempt to prey upon the weak.

Duval County is lucky that as a result of legacy decisions we own the local utility. Most counties in our state must be content to balance their budgets strictly on tax revenue and user 'fees.' As a collective, we should be engaged in using this financial contribution as an opportunity to prioritize our spending and invest in our future ... not as a way to cover up past transgressions.  What exactly do our tax dollars pay for? Why is it every other county can live within their tax revenues but we have to look to outside sources and resources, i.e. JEA?

If you can't see this for what it is, well, you are a fool and I would be even more so to try and disavow you of your foolish ways.  Goodnight, good luck and God bless. Ciao.

Awesome post Icarus... and I'm not even refering to the actual topic...
"Mayor Brown wants $40 million more from JEA to pay pension obligation"

I am refering to you pointing out what routinely happens to posters who disagree or have differing opinions or even see facts in a differing light than certain others.  I am sorry to say you have just experienced it.  You have been called names and your opinions belittled... it is very possible an ism or two will be directed towards you if you continue.  I and a few others hope you will continue... we think you are doing a great job with your posts.

Follow the lead of Daedalus...  8)

Quote from: icarus on January 24, 2014, 01:00:20 AM
I genuinely felt bad about posting a tongue and cheek comment ridiculing the conspiratorial gossipy arguments a few posted on here.  But, after being called schizophrenic and now having my comments called bullshit, any personal guilt I felt in pointing out the absolute absurdity and patently ignorant comments in this thread has absolutely been assuaged.

I'm not even sure if some even understand what the term pigeon hole means or its mathematical origins. If what you meant to say, Chris, is that I wanted to contain the discussion to relevant facts devoid of conspiracy theories and focus on the real issue, I can agree with that characterization.  On the other hand, if you are complaining that I was not content to allow two people to hijack a legitimate topic with conspiracy and conjecture devoid of any real supporting argument, I can agree that is probably true because I find it difficult to suffer fools and idiots.

The fact is that our local government has over promised retirement benefits and availed itself of pension holidays.  The Mayor's office now wants to obfuscate the real issues by engaging in cheap accounting gimmicks and preying on the emotional weaknesses of the general public in an attempt to cover it's complete ineptitude. Your seeming inability to look past the naming of JEA and your emotional responses herein only shows the effectiveness of the Mayor's attempt to prey upon the weak.

Duval County is lucky that as a result of legacy decisions we own the local utility. Most counties in our state must be content to balance their budgets strictly on tax revenue and user 'fees.' As a collective, we should be engaged in using this financial contribution as an opportunity to prioritize our spending and invest in our future ... not as a way to cover up past transgressions.  What exactly do our tax dollars pay for? Why is it every other county can live within their tax revenues but we have to look to outside sources and resources, i.e. JEA?

If you can't see this for what it is, well, you are a fool and I would be even more so to try and disavow you of your foolish ways.  Goodnight, good luck and God bless. Ciao.

You weren't containing the discussion to relevant facts, you were containing it the facts that supported what you wanted the discussion to be, rather what than it actually was. This was pointed out to you multiple times, and you continued doing it.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2014, 07:09:09 AM

Quote from: icarus on January 24, 2014, 01:00:20 AM
I genuinely felt bad about posting a tongue and cheek comment ridiculing the conspiratorial gossipy arguments a few posted on here.  But, after being called schizophrenic and now having my comments called bullshit, any personal guilt I felt in pointing out the absolute absurdity and patently ignorant comments in this thread has absolutely been assuaged.

I'm not even sure if some even understand what the term pigeon hole means or its mathematical origins. If what you meant to say, Chris, is that I wanted to contain the discussion to relevant facts devoid of conspiracy theories and focus on the real issue, I can agree with that characterization.  On the other hand, if you are complaining that I was not content to allow two people to hijack a legitimate topic with conspiracy and conjecture devoid of any real supporting argument, I can agree that is probably true because I find it difficult to suffer fools and idiots.

The fact is that our local government has over promised retirement benefits and availed itself of pension holidays.  The Mayor's office now wants to obfuscate the real issues by engaging in cheap accounting gimmicks and preying on the emotional weaknesses of the general public in an attempt to cover it's complete ineptitude. Your seeming inability to look past the naming of JEA and your emotional responses herein only shows the effectiveness of the Mayor's attempt to prey upon the weak.

Duval County is lucky that as a result of legacy decisions we own the local utility. Most counties in our state must be content to balance their budgets strictly on tax revenue and user 'fees.' As a collective, we should be engaged in using this financial contribution as an opportunity to prioritize our spending and invest in our future ... not as a way to cover up past transgressions.  What exactly do our tax dollars pay for? Why is it every other county can live within their tax revenues but we have to look to outside sources and resources, i.e. JEA?

If you can't see this for what it is, well, you are a fool and I would be even more so to try and disavow you of your foolish ways.  Goodnight, good luck and God bless. Ciao.

Awesome post Icarus... and I'm not even refering to the actual topic...
"Mayor Brown wants $40 million more from JEA to pay pension obligation"

I am refering to you pointing out what routinely happens to posters who disagree or have differing opinions or even see facts in a differing light than certain others.  I am sorry to say you have just experienced it.  You have been called names and your opinions belittled... it is very possible an ism or two will be directed towards you if you continue.  I and a few others hope you will continue... we think you are doing a great job with your posts.

Follow the lead of Daedalus...  8)

Hardly.

That is yet one more attempt to become the voice of reason in a discussion wherein they created the problem they now complain of. Of course I should point out that my question about JEA paying less than its required contribution to the city still hasn't been answered:

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 23, 2014, 05:48:47 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch, anybody want to answer the question: As a taxpayer, where's the rest of my money?

The post you're replying to is just another attempt to duck the question.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2014, 07:09:09 AMI am referring to you pointing out what routinely happens to posters who disagree or have differing opinions or even see facts in a differing light than certain others.  I am sorry to say you have just experienced it.

I've been posting on, helped operate and have created forums like this since 2001.  Here's a Kenny Rodgers strategy I apply in situations like this:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table,
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."

You're involved in a situation where you're not going to convince the opposing side to understand or accept your point of view. Unless, you want to get deep into the back and forth, which will spiral out of control (it always does) and light years away from the original topic, just remember that most reading are intelligent enough to form their own opinions in these debates. For the intelligent who are truly interested in this issue, enough material has been exposed for them to do their own homework and research. IMO, your points, fieldafm's, etc. have already been eloquently presented.

Quote from: vicupstate on January 23, 2014, 10:30:55 PMYou weaken the credibility of the entire site with these sensational tirades based on conspiracy theories instead of facts.  The only strawmen are the ones you two have made yourselves.

This particular MetroJacksonville.com website is comprised of a front page, which works more like a blog or hyper-local media site, and a interactive community forum where anyone can start topics and discussions.

Because the forum is a discussion board, where anyone can make an opinion or post an assumption, it is a "wild west" mixture of discussion, debate, personality traits, etc., that has not had an impact on Metro Jacksonville's overall credibility. Yet, it's a popular place because nothing like it really exists in Jacksonville, a community that has historically attempted to muzzle the thoughts and opinions of the average resident.

From my experience, the forums tend to build or destroy credibility on an individual basis more than anything else. The forum's true value is it is a melting pot of information that can be used for more research into a variety of topics.  Sometimes, things said pan out in reality and sometimes they don't. Personally, I use the forums as one of many resources for hyper local produced front page content and so do most of the reporters for large media entities throughout the city.  In fact, it's pretty common to see topics and discussions in the forum end up being published as article topics in local papers a few days later.

With the front page and articles, we strive to only allow well researched, sourced and documented content, so it has a different level of credibility and influence.  Also, where the site has really achieved credibility that can't be destroyed by individual posts is it's ability to rally residents around certain issues, influencing change on the city and local politics as a whole.  From the modification of BRT and getting transit into the LRTP, to getting a bike path into the I-95/JTB project, food trucks, the streetscaping of Laura Street, mothballing in Springfield and the revitalization of King Street, the community posting here has played a leading role. This is the part I actually enjoy most and why I continue to participate in the role I've accepted.

(http://prepforshtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cricket_Chirps_Temperature_Formula.jpg)

Preach on!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
(http://prepforshtf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cricket_Chirps_Temperature_Formula.jpg)

More like certain posters in this thread need some of this:

(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk137/chriswufgator/image-11.jpg)

Quote from: thelakelander on January 24, 2014, 08:35:33 AM
I've been posting on, helped operate and have created forums like this since 2001.  Here's a Kenny Rodgers strategy I apply in situations like this:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table,
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."

You're involved in a situation where you're not going to convince the opposing side to understand or accept your point of view. Unless, you want to get deep into the back and forth, which will spiral out of control (it always does) and light years away from the original topic, just remember that most reading are intelligent enough to form their own opinions in these debates. For the intelligent who are truly interested in this issue, enough material has been exposed for them to do their own homework and research. IMO, your points, fieldafm's, etc. have already been eloquently presented.

Thanks for the advice Lake.  I pretty much tried to do that with my last post. And, I've tried to be as rational and unemotional as possible in my response to the name calling and emotional outbursts. I think if I were to participate any further here it would only serve the further denigration of the topic from its original subject.

You have to pick your battles and I agree that I think enough has already been said for a reasonable person to do their own homework and come to their own opinion.

As always, I look forward to hearing the rational opinions of other people on the topics posted on this board.

We get a utility committed to making changes and being responsive to the community it serves.
They've come a long way since the article from 2010 you quoted and they are still striving to be in the top quartile in service. See the quote and article below.

QuoteFollowing a lackluster report in 2012, JEA improved its customer satisfaction rating 51 index points in 2013, according to JD Power and Associates, an independent global marketing and research company. That makes JEA the most improved utility of any in the nation, ranking just above average nationally.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=541462

To me, the real issue here has always been the mayor wanting JEA to fork over $40 million with no plan for where it will come from. Even if JEA needed work internally, just being told to pony up up money isn't going to get it done - it's simply going to make them cover it in some other way, either by raising rates (which no one wants) or service cuts (which no one wants either). Obviously I'm more in the camp of Icarus, Vic and Mike as far as JEA goes, but no matter what one thinks about JEA, this plan is weak.

I may actually be coming around to the Mayors plan and JEA's rate increase.  At least the rate increase will touch all users of the utility rather than a tax levied upon the local homeowners...  8)

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 09:57:20 AM
Tacachale, I don't know if thats the real issue.  Is it?

And lets not get too focused on an actual issue as several of our posters have very tender and delicate feelings, and Bridge Troll is afraid that if even ONE poster disagrees with the Anti Brown sentiment, then well....  i can't imagine what he is afraid will happen. 

The money (and hundreds of millions more per year) should be coming from the JEA's inordinately fat profits.

What ever would you do without exaggeration...?  ::)

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:08:20 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:05:15 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 09:57:20 AM
Tacachale, I don't know if thats the real issue.  Is it?

And lets not get too focused on an actual issue as several of our posters have very tender and delicate feelings, and Bridge Troll is afraid that if even ONE poster disagrees with the Anti Brown sentiment, then well....  i can't imagine what he is afraid will happen. 

The money (and hundreds of millions more per year) should be coming from the JEA's inordinately fat profits.

What ever would you do without exaggeration...?  ::)

Well I don't know.. Are you sure that your post isnt going to hurt my fragile frame of mind, bridge troll?  I mean if you are going to hurl these accusations of exaggeration at me, shouldnt I rightfully stomp off the forum and quit? ;)

lol

Just trying to make sure that no group of five or six people gets ganged up on by ChrisW all by himself..  its not a fair fight you know.....that Chris is like Paul Bunyon after all.

Wouldnt want to be no forest with him around......nosirree!

Well you pretty much answered THAT question... I do thank you for that!

I suppose you have your reasons for hating the mayor but JEA says if they are compelled to pay 40 million more to the city they will have to raise rates to cover their obligations.  You and the Mayor may dismiss that... but the money has to come from somewhere...

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:27:28 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:25:54 AM
I suppose you have your reasons for hating the mayor but JEA says if they are compelled to pay 40 million more to the city they will have to raise rates to cover their obligations.  You and the Mayor may dismiss that... but the money has to come from somewhere...

Well thats what the thread is about isnt it?

Our arrogant snot-nosed good for nothing mayor killing the beloved family pet.  right?

If you say so...  ??? ::)

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:31:07 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:29:50 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:27:28 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:25:54 AM
I suppose you have your reasons for hating the mayor but JEA says if they are compelled to pay 40 million more to the city they will have to raise rates to cover their obligations.  You and the Mayor may dismiss that... but the money has to come from somewhere...

Well thats what the thread is about isnt it?

Our arrogant snot-nosed good for nothing mayor killing the beloved family pet.  right?

If you say so...  ??? ::)

Im just trying to find out which party line im supposed to agree with so that Im not confused.  Wouldnt want to have ChrisW come in and unleash the norse berzerker army----NObody wants that.  #unfairmassacres

We are all just waiting for you to show evidence of JEA Looting (your term) and why you would compare JEA to "Enronergy" (again your term).  We all have open minds and would love to look through the evidence.  Perhaps there is looting... perhaps JEA will someday be refered to as another Enronenergy.  But you claiminig it is so... does not make it so.
A respectful conversation is all anyone asks...

Easiest thing to do is an audit...that will answer some questions as well as clear or implicate JEA. But at least it's a start and then we go from there.

Just saying it can't hurt...unless things are found during the audit.

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 09:57:20 AM
Tacachale, I don't know if thats the real issue.  Is it?

And lets not get too focused on an actual issue as several of our posters have very tender and delicate feelings, and Bridge Troll is afraid that if even ONE poster disagrees with the Anti Brown sentiment, then well....  i can't imagine what he is afraid will happen. 

The money (and hundreds of millions more per year) should be coming from the JEA's inordinately fat profits.

The news stories that kicked off the thread are about the mayor wanting to get another $40 million a year from JEA to put toward the pension. Neither story, or any others, indicate the mayor has any idea of where exactly the money would come from or what would keep JEA from just raising rates or cutting services cover it. Even if the JEA somehow had $40 million lying around, there's no indication they'd tap that rather than raising rates. In that case, it's just another case of the mayor making someone else raise taxes for him.

Quote from: icarus on January 27, 2014, 10:47:59 AM
We get a utility committed to making changes and being responsive to the community it serves.
They've come a long way since the article from 2010 you quoted and they are still striving to be in the top quartile in service. See the quote and article below.

QuoteFollowing a lackluster report in 2012, JEA improved its customer satisfaction rating 51 index points in 2013, according to JD Power and Associates, an independent global marketing and research company. That makes JEA the most improved utility of any in the nation, ranking just above average nationally.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=541462

So they're the skinniest kid at fat camp? Impressive.

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 02:01:16 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 12:26:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:31:07 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:29:50 AM

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 11:27:28 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2014, 11:25:54 AM
I suppose you have your reasons for hating the mayor but JEA says if they are compelled to pay 40 million more to the city they will have to raise rates to cover their obligations.  You and the Mayor may dismiss that... but the money has to come from somewhere...

Well thats what the thread is about isnt it?

Our arrogant snot-nosed good for nothing mayor killing the beloved family pet.  right?

If you say so...  ??? ::)

Im just trying to find out which party line im supposed to agree with so that Im not confused.  Wouldnt want to have ChrisW come in and unleash the norse berzerker army----NObody wants that.  #unfairmassacres

We are all just waiting for you to show evidence of JEA Looting (your term) and why you would compare JEA to "Enronergy" (again your term).  We all have open minds and would love to look through the evidence.  Perhaps there is looting... perhaps JEA will someday be refered to as another Enronenergy.  But you claiminig it is so... does not make it so.
A respectful conversation is all anyone asks...

Lol.  The only respect that counts is from the side you don't agree with (ChrisW apparently).  Everyone else can just say whatever kind of thing and its just self defense.  because #dangerousscarygiants....

And the difference between a negotiated amount of less than 5% and the statutorily possible amount of 20% isnt considered enough to start with?

Disagree with the terms "looting" and "enronenergy"with no proof?  Ya got me...

Stephen - I actually have done the math.  I've read the financial statements/annual reports for the last five years. I've looked at the trend upward in contributions to the City from JEA and even wondered why the contribution to the City in 2013 was over 50% of its operating income.

I looked at the balance sheet read the credit rating reports on JEA's and COJ's bond issues and despite the rather extensive analysis by third parties regarding the operational and financial performance of JEA .... I can't find hundreds of millions in cash that wasn't paid to COJ. Hell, I can't even find hundreds of millions in unencumbered cash, e.g. free to spend.

What I did find was over $6 billion in debt, a large part of which was accumulated after the purchase of water and sewer assets in 1997 and not helped by JEA's artificially maintaining reduced electric rates (lowest in state at the time).After a series of rate hikes in the last decade to try and right the listing financial ship at the utility (i.e. high debt burdens), JEA agreed in 2011 to not raise its base rate to consumers for a period of at least four years which it has stuck to while still maintaining and increasing the amount contributed to COJ.

In reviewing board minutes and reports from credit rating agencies, I also discovered that to help ease the debt service burden, JEA has made plans to fund all its capital requirements from operating cash flows and existing reserves, to the extent they exist, at least through fiscal year 2018.  This of course weighed significantly in the rating agencies maintenance of JEA's credit rating.

In examining the terms of existing bond issues of both JEA and COJ, I did have some serious concerns.  JEA's bond agreements require maintenance of certain debt service ratios and JEA's operating revenue has already been pledged as security to those bond issues.

What I find even more troubling is the COJ bond issues, specifically my analysis focused on the Series 2008a and 2008b capital project revenue bonds issued by COJ for $122.4 million.  It seems COJ has already pledged the contributions from JEA as security for this bond issue so its not even really clear to me that COJ has full authority to pledge or use additional money from JEA even if it found the pot of hundreds of millions of dollars that you arguments seem to presume exists.

Now, after over educating myself on JEA and COJ finances, I can truly make the educated opinion that I don't see any way that JEA can be saddled with a fixed contribution of $40m per year for the next 14 years and not have it adversely impact customer rates.

So, back to the original point of the thread for further emphasis, do I think Mayor Brown made even an educated guess as to the feasibility of his proposal before offering to stick JEA's finger in the pension fund dyke? ... No, I don't.  Which brings me to my original conclusion, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its a duck or in this case a tax.

So, feel free to accuse JEA of being Enron, feel free to allege business with insiders and malfeasance by the administration and JEA officials as to missing funds, cash pools and not meeting legal requirements for contributing to COJ .... just offer up some real proof specifically facts .. better yet, if you have them, I suggest calling the economic crimes division of the State Attorney's Office and filing a report .. I'll even go with you and hold your hand ..... otherwise, feel free to make emotional pleas that JEA should be paying more .... because .. well, just because.

And, Chris, I felt my providing an article from 12/31/2013 showing the progress being made and the commitment from JEA's new executives to address past deficiencies was an excellent response to the post of a link to an anti-JEA website with no activity since the posting of a 2010 article on the same subject matter.  And, I'm glad my kid is the skinniest at fat camp (to use your crude metaphor) .. but maybe, I'm just glad to see one area of government working to make a difference.

Actually, Stephen, I relied more upon the independent analysis of Moody and Fitch rating agencies because I know you and Chris have already expressed reservations about the authenticity and reliability of JEA's reporting and of course Ernst and Young's audit thereof.  I really wanted to make sure my opinion was well researched and based on facts so I apologize if it is inconvenient that my conclusions mirror those reached by other parties especially if those of JEA and E&Y.

2013 Net Operating Income $157, 370,000
2013 Contribution to COJ     $106,687,000

Well, I just assume when you asked for profits that meant net income.  JEA does provide a breakout of its financials in its annual report by operating division electric versus sewer and water.  It also breaks out non-operating revenues and expenses such as the income from energy trading and interest on the $6 billion in debt.

Maybe, if you were more clear in the argument you are trying to make, I could help you by excerpting the relevant financial data for you. Glad to help in anyway I can.

So is the COJ contribution coming out of the net operating income, or is that factored as an operating expense? Either way another $40 million is going to be a big chunk out of the income.

Tacachale - Net Income is calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) which does not include the contribution to COJ.  The COJ contribution is stated separately. 

The net income does include the tariffs and taxes paid to COJ which is separate and in addition to the annual contribution (stated separately).

Unfortunately, the only financial data you or I are going to have access to is the data contained in the quarterly and annual reports.  These reports are audited by an independent international accounting firm so unless you feel E&Y is not doing an appropriate audit of the numbers they are a reliable presentation.

I'm sure I could provide monthly numbers and I can even probably provide a graph of average monthly energy consumption which intuitively should mimic revenues.  But seeing as revenue does not equate to profit and is not reflective of cash available for contribution to the COJ. I'm not sure what the point is unless you are trying to make a plea simply on the fact that they have large revenues.

Based on the analysis of the credit agencies and some bond analyst coverage, JEA's financial ratios are inline with industry but for an inordinately high debt ratio which I indicated before was the result of acquisitions and trying to artificially maintain low utility rates several decades ago. This is just one more reason why taking more from an agency trying to compensate for the bad decisions of previous management would be a bad idea.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to argue that previous City administrations and previous management of JEA did not make some financial missteps and that those missteps have not directly resulted in impacting both user rates and contributions to the City.  I just don't see how taxing the utility with an additional contribution doesn't directly impact current users and how the possibility of higher rates doesn't factor in to the evaluations of industries considering whether to locate here.

Again, maybe if you just came out and made a specific argument,  it would be easier to discuss. I promise I won't dismiss it and I'd be more than happy to consider it.

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 07:05:49 PM

Quote from: icarus on January 29, 2014, 06:59:34 PM
... I'm sure I could provide monthly numbers and I can even probably provide a graph of average monthly energy consumption which intuitively should mimic revenues.  But seeing as revenue does not equate to profit and is not reflective of cash available for contribution to the COJ. I'm not sure what the point is unless you are trying to make a plea simply on the fact that they have large revenues. ...

so you dont have any idea of the revenues?

I absolutely do. I just don't see the relevance and the rest of my comment spoke to that.

Total Operating Revenue: $1,812,819,000

There are some additional non-operating revenues but they are more than offset by non-operating expenses so I am not sure they are relevant in terms of determining revenue.

Quote from: icarus on January 29, 2014, 06:59:34 PM
... But seeing as revenue does not equate to profit and is not reflective of cash available for contribution to the COJ. I'm not sure what the point is unless you are trying to make a plea simply on the fact that they have large revenues.

Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2014, 07:26:26 PM
and any idea what those non operating revenues are?

So 2 BILLION dollars annually?  and thats just on 'operating' revenue......  which would make 40 million about 2% of that lesser figure.

Non-operating revenues include about $4.5 million from energy trading and a few miscellaneous items but they are all wiped out by the $200m plus in debt service.

Right now, your electric rate consists of the base rate and the fuel rate.  The fuel rate reflects the variances, i.e. price spikes in coal or natural gas.  Contributions to the City of Jacksonville represent about 16% of the base rate and debt service represents about 22%.

I've already noted and conceded that JEA has a relatively high debt burden.  I've also noted that new management is making a lot of effort to compensate for decisions of past administrations and management.  By utilizing operating revenue and cash reserves rather than new debt, JEA is going to be able to reduce payments for debt service as a percentage of the whole. Also, the nuclear plant in SC is anticipated to go live in 2018 which will eliminate the amount of cash being invested in construction of that facility and provide a stable and consistent source of cheaper energy, e.g. improving cash flows.

Considering all of that, I personally would rather invest in the future and allow JEA to get itself in a better financial position to not only continue its current rate of increased contributions but be in a better position to provide greater contributions in the future.

Plus .. maybe you missed that part where I mentioned the City has already mortgaged the money from JEA to fund its own capital improvements.  Gee .... I wonder why we have so much debt ....

If it were privately owned, and didn't cover water and sewer, it wouldn't be contributing anything to COJ.

Stephen -

I neither agree that the group of bondholders are:

(1) small .. its over $6 billion in bonds

(2) responsible for the decisions to borrow made by JEA and COJ

(3) that the bondholders aren't anything but independent parties .....

(4) nor that large amounts of debt are not part of the normal course of business for a capital intensive business like utilities

(5) nor that JEA had the capital reserves to make the changes included in the Better Jacksonville Plan or to consolidate the fragmented water and sewer system without taking on debt

What I am willing to agree to is that:

(1) debt service at JEA is higher than average

(2) that this is the direct result of decisions made by previous management and former City Council/Mayors, e.g. mortgaging our futures

(3) has no real relation to the Mayor's proposal other than to illustrate that he is climbing on a pretty high ladder to drop that last 'bale' of straw on the camel's (JEA's) back whilst asking it to walk all the way across the Sahara without stumbling (e.g. 14 years).

Well, hopefully after all that, we can also agree that the mayor's proposal is as Chris would put it, albeit crudely, ... bullshit ;-)

Quote from: icarus on January 29, 2014, 08:32:12 PM
Well, hopefully after all that, we can also agree that the mayor's proposal is as Chris would put it, albeit crudely, ... bullshit ;-)

I never disagreed that the mayor's proposal (any of them really, not just related to pension reform) are bullshit, or ill-conceived. Pretty much anything he thinks up is, I doubt anyone could argue that point. My gripe with JEA is that they have at any one time about $740mm invested in other companies, and I question the insider participation in these outside investments, and I also question why they carry the level of bond debt they carry, which seems excessive both considering their free cash flow and considering the size of the operation overall. It seems that after all of that we pretty much agree on the basics...